1. Title, director and release year?
Darwin’s Nightmare, Hubert Sauper, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film that the fish industry--which is possibly a front for smuggling weapons into the war torn countries in Africa--has altered and even decreased the quality of life in the area. Since the entire economy in this area is based around the exportation of the local fish, the natural resources that should be going to the locals are going to the European Union which leads to the dependency upon the success of the fish exporting company (who controls the economy).
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main sustainability problem this film draws out is that the main food source--fish--of the area is being exported in large amounts from the country and being replaced with guns. This creates problems for the region because their bare essentials--a form sustenance-- is being carted out without being replaced. The fish industry in Tanzania is also unsustainable because people who were once farmers have to find new jobs because it does not create a sufficient revenue for buying rice or other local staples. So, not only is the fish being extracted from the area but there are no longer as many farms to produce other forms of sustenance. Since the area's livelihood is centered around the fish industry (which also promotes the smuggling of weapons into the country), men staying in the city and away from their families have begun to turn to prostitutes, most of whom carry the HIV/AIDS virus. Because of this, the area is experiencing an increase of death rates. Overall, the film shows how the fish industry not only creates an unsustainable source of food but an unsustainable number of human lives.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found a majority of the movie pretty persuasive and compelling but I was particularly effected by the parts concerning the children living on the streets. These poor children were left homeless, orphaned and deformed by the fishing company. These parts of the film were extremely compelling because it was sad to learn that these children are forced down dangerous and hopeless paths because some company is taking away and/or controlling their futures. Many of the children do not want to pursue futures involved with the fishing industry but are not left with any choice since they do not have the resources to gain their independence. Thus, they are forced to live off the "charity" of the fishing company, using the scraps that are left over from the local fish that is taken from Tanzania.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I felt that the film was composed pretty well and did not feel like there were any parts that were irrelevant to the story. Generally, I did find it a little discouraging that the film really only showed the complete devastation of the area without exploring any solutions. It would have been more compelling if there was some sign of hope for the people. The film even portrayed how the UN was not even really helping out the people of Tanzania.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film compelled me to seek out more information about what research was going on at the Fish Institute, why guards were needed to protect the food institute and if the fish exporting industry is just a front for exporting weapons or mainly unrelated. I would also like to learn more about what exactly it costs to pay for fish versus what the locals are able to pay and why there is not some sort of balance between these two factors.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film best addresses college students, government officials and adults (maybe even high school students). It fosters the imagination of viewers by allowing them to come to their own conclusions about this issue in Tanzania. I think that after watching this film, viewers will want to help the situation but be at a loss of how. This is because the film is successful at compelling the viewer to understand and object to the situation in Tanzania but sucks all the hope out of fixing the problem. It shows how the European Union and fishing company are unwilling to help the locals and how even the United Nations is not even able to help the situation. It will take more than monetary and food donations to help this country because the problem revolves around greed, capitalism and unsustainable infrastructure.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The only real points of intervention suggested by the film was concerning the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV. They looked into why the fish was not being distributed among the local people but did not suggest any solutions to the problem.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film could have enhanced its environmental educational value by delving deeper into the research at the Fish Institute. Otherwise, the film did a pretty successful job at covering all of the environmental issues surrounding this topic.
10. Why has this film received so many honors?
This film has received so many honors because it was directed in such a way that the viewer could come to understand the issue on his or her own without being shown in an overbearing manner. The director took the time to interview and film all of the parties involved to give the viewer the ability to understand the different points of view of the people involved including the pilots and the managers of the fishing company.
11. Why, also, has the film been at the center of controversy?
The film has been the center of of controversy because it brings light to the downside of capitalism, it shows the government's desire to protect the importing and exporting industry, and it displays the European Union's exploitation of third world countries. In this film, the director displayed how easy it was for European weapons manufacturers to smuggle weapons into Tanzania without the government looking too deeply into the situation. It also paints the European Union in a negative light because they are taking away the local food source and making a profit off of selling weapons to war torn countries in Africa.
12. How would you characterize the film's style and strategy for reaching its viewers?
The film's style was that of a documentary. It consisted of interviews of all the people/sides involved and minor narration by the director. To reach its viewers, the film delved into the life of all the different people affected by the fishing industry. For example, the film showed all of the children that have been forced to live on the streets due to dead or absent parents and how the lack of food and charity has left them fighting each other over what little rice they can afford and making drugs from fish bones. This generally pulls on a person's heartstrings, making him or her wish something could be done to improve the childrens' situation. The director also effectively organized the interviews so that the viewer could figure out the severity of the issue on his or her own.
13. What ethical issues does the film draw to the surface?
The film drew ethical issues such as making a profit off of war torn countries, taking away the main food supply of a community, creating a society where it is okay to mistreat women just because they are prostitutes, and giving the children a means for making drugs to the surface.
14. What sustainability problems does the film point to?
The film points to sustainability issues involving the importing and exporting of food, the spread of disease, and the inflation of prices.
FILM ANNOTATION FOR "DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE"
1. Title, director and release year?
Darwin’s Nightmare, Hubert Sauper, 2004
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film that the fish industry--which is possibly a front for smuggling weapons into the war torn countries in Africa--has altered and even decreased the quality of life in the area. Since the entire economy in this area is based around the exportation of the local fish, the natural resources that should be going to the locals are going to the European Union which leads to the dependency upon the success of the fish exporting company (who controls the economy).
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main sustainability problem this film draws out is that the main food source--fish--of the area is being exported in large amounts from the country and being replaced with guns. This creates problems for the region because their bare essentials--a form sustenance-- is being carted out without being replaced. The fish industry in Tanzania is also unsustainable because people who were once farmers have to find new jobs because it does not create a sufficient revenue for buying rice or other local staples. So, not only is the fish being extracted from the area but there are no longer as many farms to produce other forms of sustenance. Since the area's livelihood is centered around the fish industry (which also promotes the smuggling of weapons into the country), men staying in the city and away from their families have begun to turn to prostitutes, most of whom carry the HIV/AIDS virus. Because of this, the area is experiencing an increase of death rates. Overall, the film shows how the fish industry not only creates an unsustainable source of food but an unsustainable number of human lives.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found a majority of the movie pretty persuasive and compelling but I was particularly effected by the parts concerning the children living on the streets. These poor children were left homeless, orphaned and deformed by the fishing company. These parts of the film were extremely compelling because it was sad to learn that these children are forced down dangerous and hopeless paths because some company is taking away and/or controlling their futures. Many of the children do not want to pursue futures involved with the fishing industry but are not left with any choice since they do not have the resources to gain their independence. Thus, they are forced to live off the "charity" of the fishing company, using the scraps that are left over from the local fish that is taken from Tanzania.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I felt that the film was composed pretty well and did not feel like there were any parts that were irrelevant to the story. Generally, I did find it a little discouraging that the film really only showed the complete devastation of the area without exploring any solutions. It would have been more compelling if there was some sign of hope for the people. The film even portrayed how the UN was not even really helping out the people of Tanzania.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
The film compelled me to seek out more information about what research was going on at the Fish Institute, why guards were needed to protect the food institute and if the fish exporting industry is just a front for exporting weapons or mainly unrelated. I would also like to learn more about what exactly it costs to pay for fish versus what the locals are able to pay and why there is not some sort of balance between these two factors.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film best addresses college students, government officials and adults (maybe even high school students). It fosters the imagination of viewers by allowing them to come to their own conclusions about this issue in Tanzania. I think that after watching this film, viewers will want to help the situation but be at a loss of how. This is because the film is successful at compelling the viewer to understand and object to the situation in Tanzania but sucks all the hope out of fixing the problem. It shows how the European Union and fishing company are unwilling to help the locals and how even the United Nations is not even able to help the situation. It will take more than monetary and food donations to help this country because the problem revolves around greed, capitalism and unsustainable infrastructure.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The only real points of intervention suggested by the film was concerning the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV. They looked into why the fish was not being distributed among the local people but did not suggest any solutions to the problem.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film could have enhanced its environmental educational value by delving deeper into the research at the Fish Institute. Otherwise, the film did a pretty successful job at covering all of the environmental issues surrounding this topic.
10. Why has this film received so many honors?
This film has received so many honors because it was directed in such a way that the viewer could come to understand the issue on his or her own without being shown in an overbearing manner. The director took the time to interview and film all of the parties involved to give the viewer the ability to understand the different points of view of the people involved including the pilots and the managers of the fishing company.
11. Why, also, has the film been at the center of controversy?
The film has been the center of of controversy because it brings light to the downside of capitalism, it shows the government's desire to protect the importing and exporting industry, and it displays the European Union's exploitation of third world countries. In this film, the director displayed how easy it was for European weapons manufacturers to smuggle weapons into Tanzania without the government looking too deeply into the situation. It also paints the European Union in a negative light because they are taking away the local food source and making a profit off of selling weapons to war torn countries in Africa.
12. How would you characterize the film's style and strategy for reaching its viewers?
The film's style was that of a documentary. It consisted of interviews of all the people/sides involved and minor narration by the director. To reach its viewers, the film delved into the life of all the different people affected by the fishing industry. For example, the film showed all of the children that have been forced to live on the streets due to dead or absent parents and how the lack of food and charity has left them fighting each other over what little rice they can afford and making drugs from fish bones. This generally pulls on a person's heartstrings, making him or her wish something could be done to improve the childrens' situation. The director also effectively organized the interviews so that the viewer could figure out the severity of the issue on his or her own.
13. What ethical issues does the film draw to the surface?
The film drew ethical issues such as making a profit off of war torn countries, taking away the main food supply of a community, creating a society where it is okay to mistreat women just because they are prostitutes, and giving the children a means for making drugs to the surface.
14. What sustainability problems does the film point to?
The film points to sustainability issues involving the importing and exporting of food, the spread of disease, and the inflation of prices.